This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
If the discussion decides to have a separate article, we could work on
Draft:2021 Fultdondale tornado. If the discussion decides not to have a separate article, we will speedy delete the draft.
Neutral In My Opinion, this may not be a bad idea to have a separate article. However, I don't know if every tornado deserves an article or not. However, I don't think that we should never write tornado articles. For example, I think we should possibly write an article on deadly EF3+ tornadoes, all EF5 tornadoes, and rare tornadoes. (e.g.) Non-fatal EF3 Tornado in South Florida during winter. --
Wxman28 (
talk)
20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Leaning Support, but not now I was actually going to start an article myself until I saw this. Heavy damage in a populated area and a fatality warrant a section, but the thing I want to highlight is the unusual environment the storm formed in. We won't know much about it now, but I do want to see what is being said on it in the future.
ChessEric (
talk·contribs)
20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Nothing here warrants a full article, as it will inevitably be a rehash of what’s already in the section. Also, there is nothing exceptionally special about the “environment the storm formed in.”
United States Man (
talk)
04:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Noticed I said environment and NOT place. The place has nothing to do with my argument. However, the summary from the NWS Birmingham states the more favorable conditions for tornadoes were further north. They also said, "...the formation of this tornadic storm was particularly interesting given the overall environment. A few small-scale factors, perhaps not present elsewhere, appear to have come together to allow this storm to produce such a tornado." That's why I want an article. Its not for the event itself, but the factors that led to it.
ChessEric (
talk·contribs)
22:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
An EF3 tornado in January or February is not exceptionally rare. A tornado in the south (especially Alabama) is not rare at all in January. So this argument holds no weight.
United States Man (
talk)
22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Even then, a strong occurring somewhat outside the typical temporal or geographic range does not lend all that much notability. It doesn't matter if the tornado hit in January or April, Alabama or upstate New York. Impact and coverage should be the primary factors determining article-worthiness.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Section in the main article supplemented by this list is fine. The scale/scope of damage and meteorological context isn't exceptional for January. There will always be enough meteorological info to make an article of adequate length, but I don't think it's warranted. ~
Cyclonebiskit (
chat)
23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
United States Man,
ChessEric, and
Wxman28: It seems there has been a failure to communicate, since the Fultondale article was move from draftspace to mainspace, redirected, and moved to user space without discussion. Things might need to be hashed out more, but it seems consensus is leaning against having the article.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
United States Man: Is there a source for the Humphreys County, TN tornado on February 28? I can only find a report of thunderstorm wind damage. I was going to remove it, since an IP has been adding TN tornadoes without a source, but I saw that you added it.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I am going to have to ask you stop reverting it. That report list specifically states the NWS certified local storm report confirming the tornado in question.
-8medalkid — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
8medalkid (
talk •
contribs)
19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
March 12 tornado
@
United States Man and
8medalkid: Let's do this here instead of getting into another edit war. 8Medalkid, if you can provide a better source for the tornado, please do so in the same edit that you add the tornado. Preliminary tornado reports through the SPC are generally not confirmed until there is a survey. Worst case, we wait for the NCDC release.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Except, this is a content disagreement. When it comes down to it, what you and 8medalkid disagree on is whether there is sufficient reliable documentation to include the March 12 tornado. That kind of thing is not an exception to the
three-revert rule, which both of you are close to breaking.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm looking over the NCDC data and updating tornado with significant changes, but a lot of tornadoes are pretty much the same apart from a 1-minute difference in touchdown/liftoff time or a 0.01-0.03 mile difference in path length. Are these small differences even worth updating?
While It's kind of OR territory, I kind of doubt a lot of tornado paths can even be defined to an accuracy of 0.01 miles, since the tornado does not have sharply defined edges and the path may be subject to something along the lines of the
Coastline paradox.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
01:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll look into that after the next map update, then. It also seems that a lot of tornadoes that cross county lines have shorter paths than indicated by the original PNS's. It's so common that I'm wondering if some error is introduced when the paths are broken up.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply